They must have been - their parent's were much smaller. If we go back in history and look at the height of our early ancestors (you know, these scary creatures that without tools or only with a stone hunted and killed fast, large animals
), they were just over 3 feet tall. Going back as short as to the mid-nineteenth century, European troops were around 1.65m - and they didn't select the smallest ones when they looked for soldiers. Today, Europeans has the highest average height in the world, often close to 1.80 (for males). 15 cm in one and a half century seems much, but the average height for Norwegians increased by 7.3 cm from 1920 to 1970, and the average height for Chinese children apparently increased 3-4 cm in only 5 years!
The Chinese are known for also adapting a Western diet more than before - with the diseases that follow it, and weight problems - one out of four Chinese are now considered overweight.
Since taller parents probably means taller babies but not necessarily a wider birth channel, maybe births were less painful before.
The main thing is of course that the unborn child gets the nutrients it needs, otherwise one would probably see a reduced fetus development rate, which could cause longer pregnancy and therefore increased, not reduced baby weight: " In the Albany study, a significant positive association (p < 0.001) existed between the occurrence of any aversion and increased foetal growth index (FGI). Foetal growth index is a measure of mean size for gestation length adjusted for population means in the specific geographic area. Several positive associations (p < 0.05) were noted between increased FGI and aversions to meat consumption, implying that decreased consumption of meat produced increased FGI. The mechanism seems to be that somewhat decreased protein intake results in slightly slower foetal maturation, resulting in longer gestation time, the evidence of which is then increased infant birth weight".... IF this
quote make 100% sense, that is. I'm not sure if it does.
Bookmarks